NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Alpall v Blue Mountains City Council [2006] NSWLEC 510
Applicant: Alpall Pty Ltd PARTIES : Respondent: Blue Mountains City Council
FILE NUMBER(S) : 11098 of 2005
CORAM: Roseth SC
KEY ISSUES: Development Application :- conservation area
DATES OF HEARING: 18/07/2006 to 21/07/2006, 31/07/2006, 16/07/2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/16/2006
Applicant: Mr A Galasso, barrister instructed by Mr C Drury of Phillips Fox LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Mr P Jackson, solicitor of Pike Pike & Fenwick
JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Roseth J
16 August 2006
11098 of 2005 Alpall Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains City Council
Copy of Senior Commissioner's notes read into the record on 31 July 2006 1 Senior Commissioner: This is an appeal against the refusal by Blue Mountains City Council (the council) of a development application to demolish some existing buildings and erect a two to three-storey commercial and residential development containing 12 shops, a supermarket, commercial space and 23 apartments on lot 1 and 2 DP 514529 and lot 18 DP 662808, known as 152-156 and 158-160 Leura Mall, Leura.
The site and its context 2 The site of 3,238m2 is located mid-block on the eastern side of Leura Mall and is defined to the east by an existing council carpark. Leura Mall is a significant retail precinct that services Leura's population as well as tourists. Because of its high urban design qualities, it is well known and much loved throughout the State. The mall is characterised by a diversity of individual heritage buildings on both sides that step down the slope away from the railway line together with a landscaped central zone that accommodates the cross fall and defines the one-way road system serving either side. The road on the western side is one or two metres below the eastern side. There are landscape elements in the eastern footpath easement, particularly in the vicinity of the subject site. 3 The site contains a number of large warehouse type buildings set back from the lot boundary as well as two older buildings, the Miko and the IGA buildings, which have streetscape significance and contribute to the character of the Mall. There is also Thornley cottage, the importance of which is in dispute. The building adjoining to the south contains a shop known as Auto One. To the north is the heritage-listed Post Office, which has an eastern extension and a Telstra shed to the rear.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate